El Nuncio

I agree with Mr. Berkov's responses... However, I will endeavor to be original. 1) Iran has very little to do with 9/11, if anything. The hijackers weren't from Iran. Osama Bin Laden wasn't from Iran. Al Qaida isn't Iranian. Afghanistan and the Taliban weren't in Iran. 2) Whether or not one believes in the importance of morality or in maintaining the moral "high ground," the single most effective, unquestionably idiot-proof way to get rid of it would be to initiate a nuclear attack against a foreign metropolis in a country that has never been proven to be in possession of nuclear weapons of its own, let alone have used them. 3) Any review of history should indicate that Middle Eastern societies in general, including Jewish and Muslim societies, hold as one of their most distinguishing features the uncompromising will to hold onto a slight forever and ever. They are still fighting over who did what to whom over two thousand years ago, let alone what happened two weeks ago. If you wanted a guarantee that the Muslim world would be united in total and unflinching hatred and loathing for the United States for the next two thousand years, in a way that it is not presently united for any cause, then nuking Tehran would do it. 4) Most inhabitants of places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are not militant terrorists, which is why there were 19 hijackers on Sept. 11th and not 19 million. See above; unless you're suggesting that we use enough nuclear power to wipe out not only Ahmadinejad in Tehan but all Muslims in all parts of the world, be prepared for a very unfriendly reception from the remainders. 5) The general theme of the responses on this thread seems to include the following: a) that all people who live in a Middle Eastern country other than Israel are Muslims, that all Muslims are fanatic Islamic lunatics who are bent on using terrorism to destroy the United States, and c) that the best way to respond to an indiscriminate attack on non-combatants is with an even larger indiscriminate attack on non-combatants. I submit that all three of these impressions are grossly inaccurate, and that the folly of basing military policy decisions on grossly inaccurate judgments of an entire geographic region is a valid reason not to nuke Tehran. And just for fun: 6) The people of the United States are not prepared to deal with the ramifications that accompany the stigma of being the only country ever to have deployed nuclear weapons in hostility not once but twice. 7) Most of the world clamored for sanctions after North Korea's pitiful little supposed nuclear test. Imagine what would happen after the U.S. conducts a similar test several orders of magnitude larger on a densely populated area. 8) It is wholly irresponsible and self-injurious: we lack the military capacity to protect our forces and our citizens abroad from the dangers they might very likely face after we have instigated such a catastrophic upheaval and committed what many will (rightly or wrongly) perceive as a grievous injustice far more worthy of condemnation and retaliation than the events of Sept. 11th. 9) "We should have done it five years ago." Five years ago, we didn't even know for certain who was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Not knowing who is responsible for an attack is not a logical reason to launch a devastating attack at someone who simply might be. 10) We cannot "retaliate" against Iran, as some have suggested, because Iran has yet to attack the United States. 11) A study of history shows us that one of the reasons that there have only ever been two instances of nuclear deployment by one nation against another (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) is because those who have been in possession of nuclear weapons at various times since WWII have realized that the deployment of a nuclear weapon could yield no positive outcome. The concept of mutual annihilation between the USSR and the U.S. kept the world from destruction during the Cold War, and a modified version of the principle has kept nukes on the shelves for all other conflicts as well. However, once the threshhold for acceptable use (presently there is none) is lowered, the equations change all across the board. It is a precedent-setting act that has far-reaching implications for the future of civilization. Stalin and Truman realized it, Kennedy and Khrushchev realized it, Reagan and Gorbachev realized it, and everyone else has thus far realized it as well. For any of you who don't, I suggest you spend some time reviewing the history of nuclear detente before you get too eager to push the button.